with Janna McKay (pseudonym), Jan Hill, John Nugent, Jim Thomas, and Jeff Walker
Hosted by Paula Foster Chambers
Edited by Jessica Allen
November 8-12, 2004
The following Guest Speaker Discussion originally took place on WRK4US in November 2004. Because WRK4US has a confidentiality policy, all names and email addresses have been altered or removed, except for the moderator's and the Guest Speakers'.
The discussion can be read in two ways- by simply scrolling down and reading the whole thing, or by clicking on the topical links below, which take you to specific places within the discussion. The discussion can also be printed out in its entirety for your reading convenience.
If you are interested in editing a future discussion, your help will be much appreciated; email Paula Foster Chambers, WRK4US List Manager, at pfchambers@sbcglobal.net
PERFORMING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
ARCHAEOLOGY RESEARCH CAREERS
QUESTIONS FOR JAN HILL: BACKGROUND, CLIENTS & RESEARCH RESPONSIBILITIES
ESSENTIAL EXPERIENCE(S), SKILLS & TRAINING
ISSUES OF INTEGRITY
ENTRY-LEVEL JOBS IN ADVANCEMENT RESEARCH
QUESTIONS FOR JOHN NUGENT: ROUTINE vs. SPECIAL PROJECTS
BALANCING WORK LOAD
QUESTIONS FOR JIM THOMPSON: GENERAL ADVICE TO SOMEONE STRAIGHT OUT OF ACADEMIA
THEORY, REFLECTION, CONNECTION
FOCUS GROUP RESEARCH
FREELANCE vs. ON-STAFF, FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT
WORKING FOR NONPROFITS
FINDING RESEARCH CLIENTS
ADVANCEMENT (FUNDRAISING) RESEARCH
CLOSE OF DISCUSSION
Introductions
Jeff Walker
My name is Jeff Walker, and--since January 2003--I've been one of the two Research Managers at Children's Hospital and Health System Foundation, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Using a broad range of mainly Web-based public records (e.g. real estate records, tax filings for publicly-traded companies (which include salary information for the top executives), tax records of other foundations, etc.) and an in-house online constituent database called Raiser's Edge, I gather and analyze information to help the Foundation raise money for Children's Hospital of Wisconsin. The most pressing questions I try to answer aren't merely "Who has money?" and "How much?," but rather:
--"Of the people locally, regionally, and nationally, who have the means to provide truly significant financial support (i.e. 'major gifts'); who--based on their prior giving to the Foundation, and their publicized giving to other organizations--would be most likely to do so in the near term?"
--Or, in other words: "Given that the members of the Foundation's on-the-road 'sales' staff only have so much time, where should they focus or 'invest' their efforts, to maximize the potential 'returns' (i.e. donations)?"
--"Who do we already know who knows the people we wish we knew? Which of our current donors could help 'open some doors,' to connect us with those potential donors?"
--"Has Corporate Foundation X or Family Foundation Y previously supported children's causes, or healthcare organizations, and how much support did they give? Have their giving guidelines changed since then? Of those serving on their Board of Directors, or on their executive staff, is there anyone we might already know?"
The type of "research" to which my job-title refers is variously called "prospect research," "development research," "fundraising research," or "advancement research." The last of these is actually the preferred term, according to rhetorical conventions established by the field's leading professional group: the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement. (See www.aprahome.org and www.aprahome.org/chapters/wisconsin.html, for additional information.)
Before becoming an advancement researcher, I had taught college-level composition, literature, and cultural theory at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for nearly a decade (1989-1998) and, simultaneously, had been a graduate student there, completing an MA and PhD in English/Modern Studies (1990 and 1995, respectively). My dissertation explored changing representations of mothers and sons in 20th C. American literature and theory, as well as changing possibilities for mother-son, and "mother"-"son" mentoring. The guiding methodology was "symptomatic reading": a detail-obsessed technique twining psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and feminism, modeled most notably by my thesis-adviser, feminist scholar Jane Gallop.
That habitually generative attention to detail served me well when I entered advancement research. In the summer of 1998, Lawrence University--the small Midwestern liberal arts college where I had earlier completed a BA in Philosophy (1986)--advertised a position on its fundraising team: "Development Research Officer." Two facets of that job-posting really grabbed me: they said they were looking for someone with "insatiable curiosity" (hmmmmm), and they also noted that Web-based research would be central.
I had, in fact, been surfing the Web quite a lot in the years since my PhD defense (during which I had "lingered" at UW-Milwaukee, as an adjunct instructor in the English Department). Having finally realized that the academic job-market would remain grim, I was diligently exploring all of the "other professional opportunities" I could find, which had resulted in a series of contacts and eye-opening (perspective-broadening) interviews. While researching my options online, I had often thought: "Wouldn't it be great to land a job involving intensive Web-work--work that was all directed toward some cause I believed deeply in?" My undergraduate alma mater certainly seemed to fit the bill, and--in August 1998--I became their sole ('solo-shop') Development Research Officer.
Predictably, the job involved considerable juggling. I was a researcher and also a reporter, analyst, writer, data-entry guru, (paper-)file clerk, in-house historian, co-strategizer, and all-purpose list-generator. I wrote background profiles on the people Lawrence's fundraisers were scheduled to visit. I reviewed the "call reports" (post-visit summaries), identified any new bits of information (e.g. new address, new spouse or partner, new employment information, new children, new comments about Lawrence U., or new giving-interests), and updated our in-house database accordingly. I monitored clippings from local and national media-sources, to determine which Lawrence graduates were 'in the news,' and which--based on career-progression--were most likely to be newly receptive to a discussion about major-gift support. And I regularly prepared lists of people who had been visited recently and people who ought to be visited soon, so the fundraising team could collectively decide on the "next steps" at our weekly Prospect Strategy meetings. As time permitted, I also drafted detailed background profiles on selected members of the school's Board of Trustees; and I designed, won approval for, and implemented an A-B-C system for prioritizing the major-gift prospect-pool (wherein an "A" marked the few truly excellent prospects: those who were both the most wealthy and the most inclined to give in the near term).
Within a year, a similar position became available at my graduate school alma mater in Milwaukee, where I had lived since 1987. I knew that moving on (or back) to UW-Milwaukee would feel like an almost "natural" progression--especially since, with my family still in that city, I had been commuting back-and-forth every weekend. I started at the UW-Milwaukee Foundation/UW-Milwaukee Development Office in August 1999 as a Research Assistant. Although the work was basically the same as what I had done at Lawrence U., many of the donors' names were of course different, and I now reported to--and was able to share the project-load with--the Director of Research.
Over the next couple of years, I steadily "grew" my role on the UW-Milwaukee fundraising team. When I was eventually recruited by Children's Hospital and Health System Foundation in November/December 2002, I had become an Assistant Director of Research, with responsibilities that included not only advancement research, but also substantial writing (e.g. proposals for the Chancellor's Office), plus hiring, training, and supervising the office's various part-time Student Research Assistants.
Since 2003, I've had the privilege of helping Children's Hospital and Health System Foundation raise money for Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, through strategically focused information-gathering, analysis, news-routing, and writing, and through ongoing project-collaboration with multiple colleagues. Although this is not the sort of work I ever would have anticipated doing when I finished my doctorate (back then, I didn't even know "advancement research" existed!), I've been delighted by its many truly rewarding aspects, including:
- the challenge, variety, and real pleasure of continual, curiosity-sparking liberal-artsy learning
- the satisfaction of 'making a difference,' of being part of a team that is literally helping to save kids' lives every day
- plenty of detail-oriented work, and plenty of writing
- a steady balance between independent/relatively autonomous projects, and collaborative/team-based projects
- intelligent, dedicated, creative, and genuinely funny colleagues
- a progressive ("diversity-celebrating") work-environment that, while of course not free of office politics, is nonetheless generally free of the posturing, pettiness, and ego-games sometimes rampant in academic settings
- an organization whose core mission and "leadership practices" give employees a sense of pride, and a sense of unity
- ample opportunities for professional development (e.g. leadership roles in the statewide researchers' group, as well as myriad opportunities for involvementsuch as publications and conference presentationsvia the related international researchers' organization)
- a decent salary, with great benefitsall of which is very distant from the popcorn-and-peanuts adjuncts often receive (there has actually been enough money for sound retirement planning, a new car, and occasional trips to Hawaii)
- challenging, varied, often-fun work that never feels as if it's 'taking over my life' or shredding my stomach: no more mountains of papers to read and grade! no more late-night class-prepping! no more resistant students who are only in my class "because it's required!"and hardly any tasks that regularly intrude upon my personal/family time
So just what, exactly, do I enjoy? Well, if I had to break down a typical ("typical"?!) day as a Research Manager at the Foundation, at least in terms of "time spent per activity," here's how it would probably look:
--Reactive research (55%): Prompted by scheduled appointments or upcoming special events, I prepare detailed background profiles on past (or potential) donors, for the Foundation's on-the-road fundraising staff.
--Prospecting and other proactive research (15%): Every day, I review local and national media-sources, to find new information about our current donors, or "new names" (i.e. people whose jobs, hobbies, or other philanthropy suggest they might be interested in Children's Hospital). My own manual news-reviews are supplemented by various forms of "push" technology: ongoing automatic Web searches via Google, Lexis-Nexis, etc.
--Writing projects (10%, and climbing steadily): Because of my prior experience with 'high-stakes' administrative ghost-writing (such as major-gift proposals for the UW-Milwaukee Chancellor's Office, or "previously" legislative correspondence for the Lawrence U. President's Office), and because of my extensive training in--and passion for--writing, Foundation colleagues have asked me to draft grant proposals (and related letters of intent), politically complicated donor-letters, special stewardship mailings, or other kinds of fundraising prose.
--Meetings (5%): The Foundation is a refreshingly collaborative workplace--which, in part, means that there are many meetings. For me, these include:
- Major Gifts staff (every 2 weeks)
- Raiser's Edge Focus Group (discussions of various database-cleanup challenges--every 2 weeks, except during the summer and fall, when "special events season" is in full swing)
- Foundation All Staff (continuing education, plus any staff-wide issues--monthly)
- TEAM Vision (TEAM = "Together: Activating-Energizing-Motivating"--more or less monthly, except during "special events season")
- Major Gifts All Staff (quarterly)
- In addition, I have brief brainstorming meetings with the Foundation's other Research Manager on an as-needed basis (at least once daily); and she and I have brainstorming/update meetings with the Director we both report to (the Foundation's Director of Corporations and Foundations) about twice monthly.
--"Wealth screening" (5%): Prior to my arrival at the Foundation, the Prospect Information Network (P!N--see www.prospectinfo.com) was hired to conduct a major "wealth screening" on our constituent database, with an eye toward better understanding 1) the wealth of our best donors, and 2) the "hidden wealth" of millionaire-donors who, so far, had given us only small gifts. We received the screening results in April 2003, and--since then--the Foundation's Research Managers have been responsible for keeping the process in play, through the preparation and distribution of carefully targeted P!N prospect-lists. (For instance, in order to generate an appropriate invitation-list for a dinner-party Donor Z was hosting at her winter home in Florida, we might use P!N to find her Florida neighbors who are also already donors, and who have the financial means to consider increasing their major-gift support. Or, in order to know who a staff member should definitely visit while traveling to Chicago, we might use P!N to identify wealthy donors whose home addresses include certain northern Illinois ZIP codes.)
--Miscellaneous other research-related work (5%): Activities that don't easily fall into the other categories--for example, locating a specific news-clipping that a colleague needs; reviewing the weekly report of all donor contacts newly recorded in our database (for research follow-up, for proactive determination of likely research needs, and for any possible HIPAA/confidentiality concerns); or posting a non-researcher-colleague's query on PRSPCT-L (an international advancement researchers' listserv), and tracking the responses. (For more on PRSPCT-L, see www.groups.yahoo.com/group/PRSPCT-L .)
--Professional development (5%): Ongoing duties associated with being involved in the international researchers' organization (e.g. articles, conferences, etc.), and also with being President of the statewide group.
Overall, I see my research-role as a key part in an endless scene of concentric storytelling. My mainly 'offstage' analysis (usually, a "story" about how someone made her money, or about how one of the programs at Children's Hospital perfectly fits a funder's interests) helps my 'onstage,' out-of-the-office, on-the-road colleagues "sell" the hospital (in other words: tell honest, richly detailed, emotionally moving stories about it) to wealthy people who are already receptive, already demonstrably committed to becoming a part of the hospital's story. Fundraising, at its best, is about strengthening the practical connections between people, and advancement research is a tool for forging those connections faster, more smoothly, more durably, and more satisfyingly for everyone involved.
I do miss working with bright students, and being a part of those 'light bulb' moments when they start to stretch their ideas and discover--and hone--their writing-voices. I also occasionally miss being in an environment where 'playing with ideas'--even ones that seem, at first blush, a little outrageous--is routine and highly prized. But I have no regrets. Advancement research taps many of the skills I sharpened in graduate school: as an eager, determined learner; as a 'quick study'; as a detail-oriented thinker/analyst/writer; and as a constructive, collaborative professional colleague. And doing this work as part of a hospital's fundraising team also has a very tangible benefit: the intellectual curiosity, creativity, and intensity are channeled toward projects that, ultimately, can have a profound--even life-saving--impact. As a pragmatist from the Peirce/James/Dewey/Rorty school, I can't help but find that kind of impact infinitely appealing.
I hope this overview has given you a glimpse of what advancement research entails, and I'm looking forward to fielding your questions. Thanks again for the opportunity to be a part of your discussion-community.
John Nugent
For lack of a better description, I sometimes tell people that I'm a one-person think tank who studies the small liberal arts college I work for. As an institutional researcher, I use a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods to assess how the various aspects of my college are working--what combinations of courses and curriculum options students choose, what sorts of students visit the writing center, whether general education requirements should be revised, how well various subgroups of students perform and why, how student satisfaction varies among subgroups of our students, how our peer institutions fare in all of these areas, etc.
Institutional research on a college campus is a job well suited to people with an understanding of how a college functions, curiosity about the workings (or malfunctionings) of an institution's structures and processes, attention to detail, and creativity and curiosity in research design. The ability to collect, analyze, and present large amounts of data is key to this job--particularly the presentation part, since your audience may be administrators or trustees who really just want the punchline and--unlike your dissertation committee--aren't too interested in the nuts and bolts of the research.
Unbeknownst to many, every college and university has at least one person doing institutional research, although the position may take a variety of names (planner, analyst, director of assessment, etc.). Every institution needs someone to fill out federal reports, maintain databases of students and faculty, and generally produce and analyze data for use by administrators, faculty, and staff in decision-making. My job description on our website says, "As the College's institutional researcher, John's responsibilities include supporting the College's enrollment and planning efforts, designing and executing research to inform institutional decision-making, maintaining major institutional data sets reported to external agencies, and completing or coordinating major institutional surveys." That sums it up pretty well, although it makes it sound a lot more boring than it really is. In addition the sometimes-tedious reporting work I do, over the last year and a half, I've worked on research projects involving admissions, financial aid, housing, student life, "town-gown" relations, strategic planning, general education revision, study abroad, and student opinion regarding our health center and the cable TV options in the dorms. An unspoken aspect of the job is "Knowledge is power," and institutional research offices generate a lot of the data that inform campus decision making of all sorts. I also put together our submission for the U.S. News and World Report college rankings each year, which is either the high or low point of the institutional research season, depending on how you look at it.
I received a Ph.D. in government (political science) from the University of Texas at Austin in 1998. I worked for nearly two years as a copyeditor for the American Society for Microbiology in Washington, DC, while completing my dissertation and going on the job market. I landed a one-year teaching position at the University of Richmond followed by a two-year position at Connecticut College, a selective liberal arts college in southeastern Connecticut (i.e., *not* U. Conn., with which we're frequently confused). I married a tenured professor during this time, and taught as an adjunct for a third year while on the job market for both academic and nonacademic jobs. I received a tenure-track offer from a college in the SUNY system, which led to many interesting (read: nerve-wracking) discussions with my wife about whether it made any sense for us to make a move. (We quickly ruled out any sort of commuter marriage.) In addition to negotiating with the SUNY school for a position for my wife--they ultimately offered her a two-year position--we also started negotiating with this college to see whether there might be some kind of permanent position here for me (i.e., to prevent them from losing my wife).
The college was in the midst of hiring an institutional researcher, an opening I was aware of but hadn't applied for because the job description called for more statistics knowledge and experience than I thought I had. On the other hand, my research and teaching interests in public policy analysis seemed to make me otherwise well qualified for the job. Discussions with the Dean of Faculty led to an understanding that I could complete additional statistics training if hired, so I went through the normal application and interview process, more or less as if they'd never met me before (another candidate had an on-campus interview as well), and got the job. Incidentally, I negotiated to be allowed to teach as an adjunct if opportunities arise, so I've taught an evening course each semester since starting the IR job--not because I hope to eventually get a full-time teaching job, but simply because I enjoy teaching. (Also incidentally, I still do freelance copyediting and proofreading, just to keep my skills up and make some extra change on the side.)
When meeting other institutional researchers at conferences, conversation always gets around to "How did you get into institutional research?" Everyone has a different story, and no one I've met so far trained explicitly to become an institutional researcher. Most have some experience in quantitative data collection and analysis, although that was not a major part of my graduate training or research. The job *is* very quantitative, since I'm always working with numbers--enrollments, GPAs, financial aid data, test scores of applicants, etc. I do lots of counting, averaging, and graphing with Excel, but it's nothing too sophisticated. (Some institutional researchers use much more sophisticated quantitative methods than I do.) I've also done a fair bit of qualitative work, such as running focus groups and analyzing the results. In short, I think the good news for people like those on this listserv is that you're probably no less qualified to do this job than anyone else (although there are some skills that show up repeatedly in job listings for institutional research jobs--see below).
Institutional research offices at smaller institutions typically employ 1-3 people--a director and an associate and/or assistant director. (I am an office of one, although I am still just the associate--don't get me started....) The "assistant" positions are entry-level, and these people probably do more number crunching and less interacting with people or giving presentations. To get a sense of what qualifications employers tend to look for, take a look at the latest job listings on the Association for Institutional Research page: http://www.airweb.org/page.asp?page=574. I think some of the requirements may be flexible--I don't use any of the standard statistical software packages (SAS or SPSS), but have become pretty adept with Excel and use it every day. At institutional research conferences, there are always "short courses" on statistics, which leads me to believe that many people in this field either acquire or brush up on their statistics knowledge once on the job. (I took a statistics course at the college after I was hired.) So, although I do a lot of "number crunching" every day, I think that I am good at this job despite my math skills rather than because of them.
To contradict the point I made above regarding training to be an institutional researcher, there *are* five or so post-masters institutional research certificate programs that you might look into (click here). I would love to have taken some of the courses these programs offer, but as I mentioned above, you can also pick up these skills once on the job as well. The IR learning curve is a little steep in terms of learning exactly how your college operates and is governed. There is also a lot to learn about the major surveys and annual reports, assessment tools, acronyms, jargon, and the quirky ways that various higher education statistics are calculated (enrollments, graduation rates, student-faculty ratios, etc.). I think a graduate certificate would help you hit the ground running more than I did, but again, I don't think this is the way that most current IR people got into the field.
Like the academic fields that WRK4US members are likely familiar with, institutional research has its own national and regional associations, conferences, publications, and listservs. I've found it to be a very welcoming and interesting fraternity of people to work with. Contrary to the perception that New England liberal arts colleges are locked in competitive struggle with one another for the best students, we do a *lot* of data sharing and collaboration behind the scenes so we can all learn from one another. Particularly during my first year on the job, I found people very willing to explain things to me and share their insights and understanding of the complex world of how colleges work.
Hopefully this gives some flavor of what institutional research is. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have to provide a better sense of what I do all day and why my transition from academia to, well, semi-academia, was a good one.
Janna McKay
Hello everybody. I'm the Research Program Manager for a non-profit in DC. When I take the longer view at my professional career, it seems to me that academia was a kind of professional hiatus, since my first job was as a research analyst of public opinion and marketing surveys at the Gallup Institute in my home country in Latin America.
My undergraduate degree was in statistics for the social sciences and that's how I became a research analyst. After about three years of working at Gallup I received a Fulbright fellowship to do my Masters in Communications at the U. of Michigan Ann Arbor. At the time going on for a Ph.D. seemed very appealing--the intellectual challenge, the flexibility of the schedule, etc., and that's how I ended up in a Ph.D. program in the same field. I always continued doing empirical/quantitative research--in my dissertation, within my courses or in a part-time job. Somehow I felt that I needed to keep that part of my background active.
Because I originally came to the US on a Fulbright, I was subject to the 2-year home rule requirement, which basically meant that I had to go back and live in Latin America for 2 years after finishing my dissertation (even though by then I was married to an American citizen). I left the U.S. after defending my dissertation, thinking that while in Latin America I would work to turn my dissertation into academic articles, teach a couple of courses, and basically build my CV to come back to an academic position in the US. Things turned out differently though. I got a couple of articles published and a few conference papers out of my dissertation, and I was offered to teach a course at the University of Buenos Aires (for free!). I applied for a few academic positions in the US and intended to continue in academia. But then a former colleague from a company for which I had done some research while working as a grad student contacted me to see if I would be interested in doing some research consulting work for his firm in the U.S. (the topic was related to my dissertation). The work was extremely interesting, I was able to telecommute from Buenos Aires, and the pay was very good. And that's how I started to get out of academia.
We came back to the U.S. and settled in the DC area, which is where my husband got a job. I continued doing research consulting for that company and then another client. Eventually I started consulting for the nonprofit I'm currently working. After a few months I started to work in a more permanent position.
I work 28 hours/week (I have 2 young daughters and this schedule allows me to balance work and family). On a typical day at my job I usually do a mix of things, such as: write reports, run statistical analyses, design survey questionnaires, samples, edit reports or press releases written by others, talk to a contractor or vendor, prepare for an interview or presentation, think about the best way to tackle a new project. What I like best about my job is the variety and the wonderful people I'm working with. The job challenges me to think about how to communicate about the research with different audiences-e.g. sponsors of a study, members of advisory committees, reporters.
What I mostly miss from academic life is life on campus. I'm not sure whether I miss academic life per se, or whether it's a kind of nostalgia for years gone by, my years as a student. What I don't miss about academic life is departmental politics and the feeling that nothing you do is ever enough.
I hope this short intro gives you a flavor of what I do. There have been many twists and turns within each stage... My message to someone who wants to transition into a non-academic career is to be very alert about opportunities around him/her and to persevere in their attempts. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have!
Jim Thomas
My name is Jim Thomas. I work as a consultant to nonprofit organizations and to private philanthropic foundations; much of my work is a kind of applied research aimed at collecting data on the effectiveness of nonprofit programs or organizational initiatives. I've been doing this kind of work about 15 years, first as an associate in a firm, then for the last ten years as an independent consultant.
In the late 1970s, I left a PhD program in social anthropology after completing all but the dissertation. At that point, there was a mismatch between a growing number of PhD graduates in anthropology and a diminishing number of academic positions becoming available in the field. By this time, I had already earned an undergraduate degree in philosophy in Mexico and a masters degree in management, and I had some business experience. Although I was very interested in some areas of social anthropology and had done well in the doctoral program, I decided to work in a family business rather than continue in anthropology.
For around ten years, I managed a small business in the petroleum industry, but I was also involved in volunteer work and in some social and political activism. Then a friend-also a former anthropology student-invited me to work with a firm that provides research, evaluation, and other consulting services to nonprofits and to government agencies. I soon found that this work brought together my interest in applied social science and my interest in social change.
Much of my work is related to program evaluation, but it includes program planning, strategic planning, research utilizing surveys and focus groups, and organization development. Occasionally a project will run for two or three years; some may only last a few weeks. I work from a home office in San Francisco.
Sometimes my projects are collaborative partnerships with colleagues; occasionally I work under a contract for a consulting or research firm; on some projects I subcontract for junior consultants and/or administrative staff. Sometimes projects line up so that for some weeks I may need to work
long hours in order to meet deadlines; at other times, the pace of work may be leisurely.
Most of my clients share a commitment to a more inclusive society. I have quite a bit of discretion over the kinds of work I do, and I have some flexibility in the way I allocate my time to work and other aspects of my life. This kind of applied research requires an appropriate methodological rigor, but it is very "situated" or contextual. I believe that, for me, this has simplified the task of selecting research projects that are directly relevant to my political values.
In some projects I work with leaders of large philanthropic foundations, sometimes identifying kinds of information that they may need to plan a funding initiative; more often, working with them to devise surveys of their grantees. The relationships between foundations and grantees are
complex, and surveys can provide one means of providing foundations with anonymous feedback. I also conduct focus groups with the leaders of grantee organizations.
In work with smaller nonprofit organizations, I often try to help the staff of the organization learn how to think critically about evaluating its programs. Often private or government donors require nonprofit organizations to conduct evaluations to demonstrate the effectiveness of funded programs.
For many nonprofit managers, this required expenditure on evaluation is poor use of funds that could otherwise be directed to the work of the program. Sometimes, it is possible to assist those managers in seeing how evaluation can be of direct benefit to the program; and it is sometimes possible to help them see how they can build in systems that provide information on program effectiveness, reducing the need for costly "external" evaluation. In the jargon of the field, this is referred to as building the evaluative capacity of the organization.
Some of the most gratifying work I do involves meeting with the clients of nonprofit organizations or government agencies that provide direct services. These clients typically receive some kind of health, educational, or social service; in many cases, these clients (or consumers of services) are from populations that have difficulty obtaining access to services. Variously referred to as marginalized or under-served populations, they face a variety of barriers to receiving the services they need. I usually meet these clients either in interviews or in focus groups; the work here is listening carefully to their experiences and finding ways for this information to inform and shape the work of nonprofits or government agencies that serve these populations.
The analysis and presentation of findings from relatively large surveys is a different kind of challenge-one that is far from mechanical. Reporting such findings in a way that is relevant to my client (usually a philanthropic foundation) requires a clear understanding of the complexities of relationship between the survey respondents and my client organization.
In one current project, a colleague and I spend some time doing Participant observation with, and learning from, groups of grass-roots leaders who are participating in a leadership development program. We use what we learn to recommend changes in the program.
Overall, I like the autonomy and flexibility I have in this kind of work, and I am refreshed and enlivened by meeting and working with people who are committed to a vision of a fairer and more humane society. Consulting and program evaluation are very broad topics. The evaluation projects I undertake are all small scale-very different in scale, methodology, and purpose than many other kinds of program evaluation. I'd be glad to see your questions about this kind of work and try to answer them.
Jan Hill
My name is Jan Hill and I am an entrepreneur who has had a rewarding and tumultuous love-hate relationship with academia! For many years I freelanced as a researcher for a wide variety of corporate clients. I am currently teaching sessionals in sociology and women's studies. (That is about all the commitment I can tolerate). And I am a certified coach specializing in focusing high achievers on where they want to go in life. This balance of teaching and coaching is perfect for me. I still continue to freelance research for a wide variety of companies and non-profits.
Prior to coaching, I operated a research company that was quite lucrative and contributed to my lengthy stay in grad school. At its peak, I employed on contract over 20 researchers (mostly friends in grad school) who would research areas that my clients needed info on, and I would create the bullet-pointed, condensed business reports. It was a pretty good set up since companies really always wanted the bottom line and reports could be done fairly quickly, and my friends picked up extra work. I sold my business 3 times; the last time was in 2002. Each time it grew back bigger than the last. Today, I mostly coach and teach, and help others start sole-proprietor businesses, and I still keep a few research clients. This helps me multi-stream my income and keeps me from getting bored.
I got started in freelance research in 1997 after a messy breakup left me loaded down with debt and without substantial income. I took a look at my skill set and knowledge base and thought that I could do social research for marketing companies among other things. I started phoning around different companies and found that my credentials alone spoke to my research abilities. I contacted companies in industries that I knew were downsizing--like the insurance industry--thinking that their research teams and resource departments were likely not sufficient, and I suggested rates of $60/hour which I suspected undercut established research businesses that would charge a total contract fee. I started hiring my friends, and raising my rates, when I became too ill to work for an extended period of time and still had to make an income. So they did the primary research and I wrote the reports. This worked out well since I hired researchers with a strong background in the area of research who could do the work faster than I could, and my business became increasingly more efficient, and successful.
An average day as a freelance researcher was, for me, very busy but rather unstructured. I would do my client calls or interview professional sources during business hours, and spend the late evenings researching on the internet when the dial-up lines were faster, or writing reports. Sometimes I would meet with clients in person, although this was rarely the case after an initial meeting. I would fax or email reports over to clients--always 24 hours early!! This left them with a good impression of my reliability, and with more time than they had expected to review my work. After an initial interview, I would prepare a statement of the research question they posed, and an estimate of the number of hours to prepare a response. They would sign the contract and fax if back.
I have enjoyed doing research work over the years and continue to do so, on an on-going basis. It feeds my curiosity and has provided me with great info to share with my students and my coaching clients. I did find writing business reports a bit tedious since the task of 'bottom-lining' felt inherently at odds with my academic interests in exposing the complexities of social relations. Farming out research work to my friends and colleagues was really fun and financially rewarding. It involved a lot of problem-solving around who would be the most efficient source of information, and I loved hunting down the best people for the job. Again, sometimes it was a bit challenging working with clients who did not embrace the intellectual magnitude of a particular question--but when I invoiced them, that frustration seemed to magically disappear! Freelance researching has allowed me to finance my education and freed up time so that I can continue to teach, take courses in new areas of interest, and grow my current entrepreneurial venture--my coaching business. It has served me well since the researching always occurred around the other things that had higher priority. It was, and continues to be a great way to build my confidence and to expand my knowledge base. I feel like I haven't had to give up anything in balancing academic and non-academic work. But it did take a while to find the balance that works for me!
I would be happy to respond to any questions about freelance researching, or managing other researchers, or running businesses while being a full time grad student. Or anything else that crosses your mind! Have a great day.
PERFORMING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
Question from QQ to Speaker Jim:
I'm quite interested in your comments. What I'd like to ask you is, How do you learn to do "program evaluation"? Do you get involved with trying to implement changes you see the need for, and the attendant personnel problems, or is that solely the problem of the organization after your work is completed?
Speaker Jim responds to QQ:
I learned the basics of program evaluation through apprenticeship with an evaluation firm. Many practitioners do. There are some graduate programs in evaluation, but most people in the field are trained in other fields. Then many of us read professional journals, belong to the professional association (American Evaluation Association), talk with colleagues, and take workshop-type courses for professional development.
That said, the field is diverse along several dimensions. Most evaluation firms have "specialists" in fields such as statistics, survey design, and qualitative research design. Some of the larger firms work primarily on large federally-funded projects; many state legislatures now have evaluation agencies; the federal Government Accounting Office (GAO) plays a visible role. Smaller firms may specialize in contracts from local government or from non-profits. Then there are different sub-fields. The evaluation of schools and education, for example, is a large field with specialized literature and methods; the same is true of medical evaluation. Often, practitioners need special training and/or credentialing for some of the more specialized work.
The professional association has a code of ethics and some general definitions of the field of evaluation, but there is no particular training or credentialing required in order to call oneself an evaluator.
Your question about how involved I get in organizational change is an interesting one. Many firms that do program evaluation are not interested in organizational issues; they produce and evaluation report of findings and that is the end of their involvement.
A number of us who work with smaller nonprofits have decided to wear a number of hats. I am interested in questions of management and organization development, and that is part of my practice. When I contract with a client organization, I try to help the staff see what might be a helpful scope of work--and that may include more involvement. Often my work includes training and coaching aspects.
All of this is a long way of answering both parts of your question with: It all depends... I hope that some of the distinctions are useful in seeing the variety of endeavors that are labeled "evaluation."
Question from EG:
I am currently completing my Ph.D. in ancient art history and archaeology. While I love research and writing, I have very little interest in academic teaching. I direct my question to you, because of your anthropology background. What kinds of work opportunities are available for people interested in researching world archaeology (i.e. not just local American archaeology) and ancient civilizations? I've thought about organizations like UNESCO, ICOMOS, archaeological journals (like American Institute of Archaeology), and the History and Discovery Channels, but I have no idea how to break into these organizations without volunteering for a long period of time (and then MAYBE getting a position). Museum work is also an obvious option, which I am already pursuing, but I'd like to explore others as well. I know this is not specifically relevant to your current work, but maybe you or someone else here has some ideas nonetheless.
Speaker Jim responds to EG:
I'm afraid that I don't have much information about your inquiry. My core training in anthropology touched only on New World archaeology. Two suggestions come to mind but may be quite off the mark. First, I believe that most of the larger archaeology projects based in the U.S. but working in other countries are managed through universities, but it may be that not all the participants hold an academic appointment. You might check out the projects that interest you and see if there are research positions available. Second, you might see what institutions are funding particular projects. I know nothing about this field, but there may be foundations or NGOs that are involved with archaeology projects. For example, I believe the Packard Humanities Institute funds some projects in classical archaeology--through funding university research teams. Still there might be related positions in the foundations or NGOs.
QUESTIONS FOR JAN HILL: BACKGROUND, CLIENTS & RESEARCH RESPONSIBILITIES
Question from MO to Speaker Jan:
Your intro is very interesting. Could you be more specific about what your background is, what sort of clients you take on, and what sort of research you do for them?
Speaker Jan responds to MO:
My PhD is in sociology: I consider myself a social theorist with a functioning knowledge in research design, implementation and analysis. I kind of learned that stuff on the fly after taking several qualitative research grad courses and supervising several BaH students in a department that was quite quantitative in focus. I started off working with a lot of insurance companies, doing legal research into case law and settlements around medical malpractice, the regulation of midwifery in Canada, the risk associated with pyrotechnics, for example. As my client base grew my clients came from more diverse corporate areas. I completed several projects for IT companies who wished, for example, for more information on why the attrition rate was so high for female employees, or for data on adult learning (I assumed the adult learning stuff would eventually find its way into marketing approaches.) I have also done projects for universities: A connection which was not hard to make given I was on campus so much! I just made it known to the Distance Education department that I was available to supervise any market research or internal research projects and they called shortly after; I ended up data collection for an international assessment of the structures within distance education departments. I also had to do some snoopy from time to time. (My dad was a private investigator so I think snoopying comes naturally to me). My most favourite information gathering project required calling some of the top players in North America involved in the field of bio-genetic engineering and pick their brains about what kind of legislative model the Canadian government might follow when setting up regulation standards. Again, this project was for an insurance company. I have also done work for the Canadian College of Chiropractors and the Naturopathic College of Canada--this work involved interviewing key informants in the HIV/AIDS community to discover what types of alternative medicines were being used by people living with aids or the HIV positive population.
I have done a lot more work than this: Basically, my motto is "if it sounds interesting and I am going to learn something, then do it." After all, what do we PhD's know how to do better than almost anything else? LEARN--and research..so I have never let my lack of knowledge going into a project deter me from doing the project if it sounds interesting--I don't need to find the answer. I just need to find the person who has the answer.
Hope this response suffices. Let me know if you require clarification or more info...I could go on for hours!!!
ESSENTIAL EXPERIENCE(S), SKILLS & TRAINING
Question from AC:
It's been very interesting to read about the different paths each of the guest speakers have taken to get to their current positions! What do you consider to be the essential experience, skills, and training for your position?
I am particularly interested in what kinds of quantitative skills and experience each of you find invaluable in your work. Currently, I am finishing up a Ph.D in the humanities (languages and literature). I have teaching experience, administrative experience, and several years clocked as an editorial assistant and freelance editor. However, I don't have the quantitative work experience that I imagine someone who has worked in their own business, or who has a graduate degree in a field such as Political Science or Social Anthropology would have.
In your view, what would you anticipate being the main obstacles to your hiring a recent Ph.D with my sort of experience--and with a lack of specifically quantitative experience? Are there particular paths you'd recommend people in my position take to improve their prospects in your field?
Thanks for your time and comments--looking forward to a great discussion!
Speaker John responds to AC:
As I said in my introduction, I don't consider myself terribly mathematically gifted. But, I am pretty good at getting a lot out of the skills I have, as well as at picking up new skills. Before getting this job, I'd mainly used Excel to compute my grades at the end of the semester. I've tried to take advantage of opportunities to learn how to use various software packages that are useful in this job. If you are at a university and can take short courses or full-semester courses where you learn Excel, SAS, SPSS, Access, etc., I'd do it. Or a community college in your area might offer such courses. Unlike when I was in grad school, my understanding is that SAS basically is about as straightforward as Excel these days (menus and point & click rather than programming).
So, I think that quantitative skills are attainable if you're interested in attaining them. It's hard for me to predict how much you'd be hurt in a job search by not having a lot of formal quantitative training. I think it would vary by institution, depending on what they currently use. I would suspect that the larger the institution, the more they would really expect serious experience with managing databases with thousands and thousands of records. Since I work at a college with about 1,900 students, we can keep do data analysis in Excel without any trouble.
Speaker Jeff responds to AC:
A strong undergrad background in the liberal arts and (as I've said elsewhere) intense curiosity would seem to me to be key to breaking into advancement research. The PhD can initially be an obstacle in interviews, because some employers 1) might feel intimidated, 2) might think you'll be too expensive, or 3) might misperceive you as being (sigh) "too academic." But they'll quickly see that the PhD, in part, means "nimble learner," steady multitasker, and reliable colleague -- which are all great selling points. In my own case, some pre-college summer experience in the electrical shop of a nuclear plant, some undergrad Work-Study experience in institutional research, and some post-BA/pre-MA/-PhD just-to-pay-the-rent experience as an office assistant in the local branch of an international accounting firm probably all helped to demonstrate that I could adapt to different work demands, and different work environments.
Speaker Jim responds to AC:
Although there are some sub-fields or particular kinds of research in social anthropology that require quantitative methods, the field as a whole is usually seen as having a qualitative approach, specifically, an ethnographic approach to research.
In evaluation there has been a long history of "culture wars" about the relative superiority of quantitative or qualitative research methods. Some of the leading academics in the field have proclaimed that those wars are over--but word has not reached some of the troops.
Overall, there is a bias toward quantitative methods in evaluation research; nevertheless there are many opportunities for qualitative researchers who can synthesize discursive text or create compelling (and relevant) narrative from interviews, focus groups, and open-ended survey questions. The skills needed for that work are perhaps similar to those required for certain kinds of literary criticism. The principal criterion of success is pragmatic: do your clients find the reports relevant and useful to their needs?
Ah, yes. There are always evaluation reports (and sometimes evaluation-based articles). The ability to present evaluation findings in a clear and interesting manner is rare. That in itself might be the foundation for building one's own niche in the field.
Speaker Janna responds to AC:
I have worked in a few projects that required mostly secondary research (e.g. web-research, library research) and where writing and editing was more important than statistics. In my own experience, however, good projects of this kind are harder to find. I'm not 100% sure why--perhaps it's because there's more people able to do this. However, you can be a more competitive candidate for a project of this kind if you know a specific language that is
relevant for it, or you've specialized in the study area involved. (then the trick becomes how to network/find the people that hire in your language/area studies).
I second John's suggestions on developing your quantitative skills. Learning statistical packages such as SPSS is easy these days. I would take some statistics courses as well. Keep in mind though when if you apply for these jobs you'll probably be competing with people who have that kind of training. You might want to look at the skills and qualifications that appear in the ads for these kinds of jobs. Most of the research analysts where I work have a sociology or a public policy background, with several courses in statistics.
Question from XY:
I'd like to ask the panelists if they ever encounter conflicts between what their research and analysis tells them about an issue, and what the party who contracted/requested the research wants to hear or can use? Are you ever pressured to change or alter your findings in ways that make you uncomfortable?
Speaker Jan responds to XY:
Corporate clients pay me to get information that will help them make decisions which will enable them to run their business more efficiently, and with greater vision. To alter findings just because they don't like them would be short sighted on my part, and disrespectful of their process. No conflict here for me!
Speaker John responds to XY:
The closest I've come to an ethical dilemma so far relates to statistics I compile that indicate faculty workload--how many students each professor teaches in a year, how many advisees they have, etc. There is a wide variation among our faculty, and to make these numbers public would raise a few hackles. Also, when departments put in staffing requests (to make their case to my boss for a very limited number of new faculty positions), they've asked me for data on where they stand relative to other departments in terms of enrollments per faculty FTE and majors per faculty FTE. These are basically public data on our campus, but to explicitly rank them and give this data to some departments and not others would be a little dicey. Luckily, in these cases, my boss (the dean of faculty) typically says to give all department chairs all the data.
I also compile data on achievement levels by race and gender, and questions about whether and how these numbers get made public is a bit sensitive.
Speaker Jeff responds to XY:
I've not experienced the sort of conflict you describe. The fundraisers who receive my info and analysis want it to be richly detailed and unslanted, because only the complete "straight scoop" will help them connect well with the people they're visiting. When I stumble upon something in the public record that's awkward/delicate but is also pertinent to the fundraising at hand, I state it in as neutral a way as possible; if there are different versions of the awkward/delicate item, I try to give an overview of the varied perspectives, with sourcing for each. Also, like advancement researchers within any healthcare system these days, I pay extra-extra-extra attention whenever steering even vaguely close to matters of a medically sensitive or confidential nature; in those instances, neutral, non-revealing HIPAA-compliant language is the rule of the day.
ENTRY-LEVEL JOBS IN ADVANCEMENT RESEARCH
Question from Paula, WRK4US List Manager:
Those of you interested in advancement research might like to see (or perhaps even respond to) this job posting for a junior-level advancement reseacher. I got it just today from an advancement research listserv I subscribe to (PRSPCT-L), so it's really fresh. Jeff, maybe you can comment on what you see in a position such as this for WRK4US subscribers.
Job Posting:
FOUNDATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE & DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY (UMDNJ)
Position: Research Assistant
Reports to: Director of Research
Salary: Competitive (with great benefits)
Level: Junior
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
The Foundation of UMDNJ:
The mission of the Foundation is to advance programs at New Jersey's health sciences university through private sector support, and promote excellence in the education of health care professionals, in biomedical research and in health care delivery. Founded in 1974, the Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation governed by a volunteer board. The Foundation solicits contributions to targeted programs and endowments throughout the University's system of schools, health care facilities and affiliated institutes.
Job Description:
The Research Assistant will be responsible for researching individuals, companies, and foundations to produce narrative profiles for development staff. The researcher will compile and analyze detailed biographical and financial information on individuals to determine their relationships to the Foundation and UMDNJ, their interests, and their giving capacity. Primary responsibilities include writing profiles and briefing materials on gift prospects using text-based and online research, and updating and organizing electronic prospect files in the Raiser's Edge database. The Researcher will assist the Director with larger projects such as pulling lists for prospecting or research for events and meetings.
Qualifications:
Bachelor's degree required. Applicant must have a minimum of one year of related work experience, which includes research, writing, and analysis of data. Applicant must have above average computer skills and attention to detail. Knowledge of online databases necessary and ability to manage multiple tasks and meet deadlines is essential. Must maintain strict confidentiality and handle sensitive information and material in a discretionary manner. Experience with Raiser's Edge preferred.
Please send resume to:
Sarah Hull, Director of Research Foundation of UMDNJ
One Worlds Fair Drive, Suite 2100
Somerset, NJ 08873
Fax: (732) 743-3280
Email: hullsa@umdnj.edu (preferred)
Speaker Jeff responds to Paula:
Thanks, Paula. I wouldn't want to comment on a job-posting from an organization I'm not familiar with. But you've reminded me of some great job-related links on the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement (APRA) website. Here's the scoop:
The latest advancement research job postings--
http://www.aprahome.org/careertools/jobpost.htm
Advancement researchers' "skills sets"--
http://www.aprahome.org/advancement/skillsets.htm
APRA Statement of Ethics:
http://www.aprahome.org/advancement/ethics.htm
If you're an advancement researcher, the place to be every August--
http://www.aprahome.org/conferences/intconference.htm
An overview of various research-links:
http://www.aprahome.org/researchlinks/index.html
[also see: http://www.supportingadvancement.com/research/research.htm and
http://pubweb.nwu.edu/%7Efla331/bookmark.html ]
QUESTIONS FOR JOHN NUGENT: ROUTINE vs. SPECIAL PROJECTS
Question from AF:
A few questions for John Nugent (and anyone else who can add advice)...
First, how much of your job is routine (same reports, same time, every year) and how much is spent on special projects.
Second, how much time do you spend with the question, "Gee, wouldn't it be interesting to look at X." (i.e., self-developed projects) vs. responding to requests from administration.
Finally, I noticed that some of the jobs listed on AIR require (or desire) a Ph.D. Do most of your colleagues have Ph.D.s or Masters? And is it possible to enter the career beyond the entry level with only a Masters (assuming some related experience)? I'm interested in a career "shift" (more research, less management--right now I have an even mix) in a college/university setting but don't want to start over at the bottom.
Thank you very much for your story and the web links. They were very helpful!
Speaker John responds to AF:
Thanks for the questions, AF.
<Question from AF, included in Speaker John's response>First, how much of your job is routine (same reports, same time, every year) and how much is spent on special projects.
I'd say about 1/3 of my job is routine stuff, and the rest is in response to requests by administrators or the result of my sitting on faculty committees related to things like strategic planning or curriculum revision. In institutional research, there are a couple of sets of numbers you need to know each year (numbers of students, breakdowns by race and gender, number of faculty, average scores of incoming freshmen, etc.) and once you know them, you repeat them many times on various surveys. So, the routine stuff goes fast once you've done the initial counts.
<Question from AF, included in Speaker John's response>Second, how much time do you spend with the question, "Gee, wouldn't it be interesting to look at X." (i.e., self-developed projects) vs.
responding to requests from administration.
I see what you mean with this distinction, but often the requests I get from the administration are pretty broad and vague. So, in responding to the request, I dive into the issue and figure out what's interesting about it and report that back to the administrator. This also involves coming up with useful ways to measure things or report the data concisely. So, just because someone asks me to look into X, that doesn't mean that they really understand what's interesting about it yet. I view it as my job to tell them what's interesting about it and often to go beyond what they've asked for.
Having said that, I have done some self-initiated work that I knew certain people would find useful, even if they didn't know to ask for it. I spent the summer working on a report profiling the past five graduating classes in terms of all kinds of achievement indicators (GPA, double majoring, Latin honors, study abroad, student government, etc., etc.) and then ran the numbers by race, gender, and financial aid status. No one asked me to do this research in this way, but I always get questions about trends in numbers of majors, trends by race and gender, who studies abroad, how do student athletes fare, etc., so I knew it would be easy just to have a single report to refer people to.
<Question from AF, included in Speaker John's response> Finally, I noticed that some of the jobs listed on AIR require (or desire) a Ph.D. Do most of your colleagues have Ph.D.s or Masters?
I don't think the bulk of institutional researchers have Ph.Ds, but I haven't really looked at it systematically. I think it's more common among directors of institutional research than among assistant or associates.
Paula responds to Speaker John:
Which means, correct me speakers if I am wrong, that while there may be an initial hump of resistance to a PhD entering the field, he or she is more likely, having gotten over that initial hump, to reach the Director level. Yes? That's what my experience in fundraising has shown. The PhD is an obstacle at first, but in the long run, it lifts the ceiling a bit higher and makes the promotions happen faster.
Paula
<Speaker John wrote (and Paula included in her message)>I don't think the bulk of institutional researchers have Ph.Ds, but I haven't really looked at it systematically. I think it's more common among directors of institutional research than among assistant or associates.
Speaker John responds to Paula:
Well, since institutional research is still more or less "academia", I don't think there's any anti-Ph.D. sentiment at all, of the sort that may exist in, say, the for-profit world.
Speaker Jeff responds to AF:
There is some routine and repetition. For example, the other Research Manager and I use a "template" for each profile we write, so we basically gather the same info (and present it in the same sequence) no matter which individual donor or prospect we're looking at. Other examples include always-rush-rush-rush profiles for the yearly Board nominees; and geographically targeted research every February and March, when some of our fundraisers visit the so-called "snowbirds" in Arizona and Florida. But, overall, the work seems to have less repetition than, say, teaching intro composition from semester to semester. Each profile feels like an entirely new adventure when I start it.
Yes, there is ample time for "proactive" (what if?) projects. That's certainly the case where I'm working now, and was also the case at my previous job. I think there's less time for it, though, if you're working in a one-person research shop.
Within advancement research, educational backgrounds vary widely. So far, there really aren't many PhDs in the field -- though I am seeing more and more of them at conferences. The other Research Manager here has a master's. I know of very successful researchers who are ABDs or who have BAs in all sorts of fields. The key ingredient (regardless of education) is intense curiosity. I edited a special issue of a professional journal in Winter 2003, which focused on researchers' diverse backgrounds; some of the articles are posted at:
http://www.aprahome.org/publications/connections/conn-winter2003.htm
Question from XY:
I hope this question isn't too specific.
Jeff, you mention having both reactive and pro-active research on your slate, plus additional projects that have gravitated to you because of your skills and interest in writing. How do you manage and prioritize your time? Or does someone else do this? Do you end up putting in lots of extra hours when tasks grow? or is there a system in which certain tasks fall to the backburner?
From reading your task list, it sounded like most of them needed to happen concurrently -- hence it seems that the load could quickly get rather large.
Thanks
P.S. if other panelists have comments on this, please jump in. Jeff's intro sparked my question so I addressed it to him.
XY
Speaker Jeff responds to XY:
Great question! Thankfully, I'm given plenty of latitude to manage my own time and juggle the various projects as I see fit. In very rare instances where neither I nor the other Research Manager can see a reasonably sane way to prioritize a pile of "need it right now!" stuff, we turn to the Director we report to, who sometimes has a better sense of the in-house stories behind the research-requests; but those instances really are quite rare. I think this was another unexpected payoff from grad school: after years of juggling teaching and dissertation-drafting, this kind of prioritizing and self-directed time-managing seems almost intuitive.
Another way to think of it: research-requests often line up quickly based on where the person making the request stands (sits?!) in the "pecking order." Anything from our System President's office goes to the top of the list, as does anything from the Foundation's Executive VP; anything from the Foundation's other 2 VPs, or from the Director the 2 Research Managers answer to, would come next; and the remainders (from the various other Directors) can usually be sorted easily based on due-dates (i.e. dates that are either provided or negotiated).
Since you asked about "putting in lots of extra hours," I should make it clear that, no, I'm not still toiling away at the office as I write this. We had a series of network problems throughout the day (with email, with Web access, etc.), so at the moment I'm just catching up on a little late-day email from home.
QUESTIONS FOR JIM THOMPSON: GENERAL ADVICE TO SOMEONE STRAIGHT OUT OF ACADEMIA
Question from RH:
I'm really enjoying reading about everyone's experiences and trajectories -- and it's exciting to consider the possibilities that exist outside of academia. Thank you!
My questions are directed towards Jim, but if anyone else has insight or suggestions, please jump in.
Jim, thank you for sharing your career trajectory with us. It's very interesting. I am working on a PhD in sociocultural anthropology (just finishing a year of qualitative ethnographic field research in a developing country), and am increasingly interested in exploring career opportunities outside of academia, especially ones that will allow me to use my skills to work for a better world/social change. I am particularly interested in learning more about opportunities in program evaluation, since I have no experience in management.
From your description, it sounds like your business and management experience helped you to move into this field. What advice would you give to someone who does not have these skills, and is coming straight from academia? What would be a possible starting point (i.e. entry-level position) for someone with a strong analytic/research skill set (i.e. a PhD) and some non-profit/NGO experience? What other skills and experience are valued/required in this field? What types of backgrounds do your colleagues typically have? (I'm guessing many would have significant experience working in the nonprofit world). What general advice would you give to someone interested in working in this field? Any websites or publications you'd recommend to learn more?
Thanks very much for you time and insights.
Speaker Jim responds to RH:
I have an interest in "organizational effectiveness" as well as program effectiveness, and my background in business and management has been useful in that way, but that background and that set of interests is not at all common in evaluation.
The field is large and diverse, and I don't have a sufficiently clear map of the field to provide many specifics. If you have not already done so, I would suggest that you look at some evaluation texts to see how "ethnography" is used in this field--I think you will find the theory and practice rather thin compared to social anthropology; but evaluation does offer opportunities for "applied ethnography" that might permit you to feel more directly engaged in social change.
One place to begin is Michael Quinn Patton's Utilization-focused Evaluation 3rd edition, 1997 (Sage). Look especially at sections on "participatory," "collaborative," and "empowerment" evaluation. I'd also look at David Fetterman's Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation 2000 (Sage) which emphasizes the role of ethnography in evaluation. Fetterman has also written a text on ethnography.
Browsing these may give you a better sense of how you would like to approach the field. I would say that your academic training, field work experience, and desire to contribute to social change should provide you with all you need to enter the field.
Would you like to work internationally? Participatory evaluation with ethnographic components is frequently part of NGO projects. Is there are particular field you are interested in--health practices, agriculture, urban development, etc?
You might try the web site of the American Evaluation Association (AEA), particular the list of Topical Interest Groups (TIGs). You might be particularly interested in the "international and cross cultural" group and/or in the "collaborative, empowerment, participatory" group. The contacts there would probably respond to your specific questions. The link is http://www.eval.org/TIGs/tig.html .
If you are feeling ambitious, you might look at the journals in the field. You could check titles and abstracts to see which topics or studies interest you, then follow up with the authors--some are academics, but others are non-academic practitioners who might be able to guide you to firms or government agencies that do specifically what you are interested in. The 3 journals I read are "Evaluation: The international journal of theory, research, and practice"; "The American Journal of Evaluation"; and "New Directions for Evaluation."
The "New Directions" is a topical issue journal. Two volumes that might be of particular interest to you are "Evaluation as a Democratic Process: Promoting Inclusion, Dialogue, and Deliberation" No. 85, Spring 2000; and "Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation" No. 80, Winter 1998.
THEORY, REFLECTION, CONNECTION
Question from Paula:
OK, I have a question for all of the speakers. In all of the various types of research that I myself have done, I have noticed that there are some similarities and some differences when you compare one type of research to another. For example, some commonalities that cut across all forms of research include: (1) there is a "research question" that you are trying to answer, whatever it may be; (2) being a curious, inquisitive person who really wants to know the answer(s) is a huge help; (3) there are many different strategies one may employ to get the information one is looking for, and part of the fun of research (for me, anyway) is nimbly shifting from one strategy or method to another. If this doesn't work, I try something else, and the very act of changing strategies when something isn't working makes me feel oh so clever and creative.
The differences seem to cluster around issues of audience, genre and purpose. For example, advancement research is done for a different purpose than, say, academic research; the resulting research reports look different and are read by different audiences, who then take different sorts of action as a result.
Would each of you please comment on this concept and share a little more about the audiences, genres and purposes of your own research? What makes your work similar to, and different from, other forms of research?
Thanks in advance.
Speaker Jeff responds to Paula:
Paula, thanks for this question. For advancement research, I'd say the primary audience would be frontline fundraisers, those who meet with donors and prospects and ask them directly to contribute financially to the Foundation (i.e. to the hospital). But there are also at least two equally interesting secondary audiences: "volunteers," usually Board members, Chairs of our various giving societies/donor clubs, Chairs of our major special events, or simply friends or colleagues of our donors/prospects; and "future Foundation staffers"--the many frontline and behind-the-scenes fundraisers who will be working at the Foundation after we all have retired, and who will benefit from the institutional history our records are creating.
The primary research genre would be "the standard research profile": a concise, detail-rich overview of someone's biographical, professional, financial, familial, philanthropic, and community-leadership background, based on information mainly gleaned from public records. I say "mainly" here not to be coy, but to hedge against the fact that a profile usually includes a summary of the person's giving history with us--and this, obviously, is not considered a public record. (That statement might have to be significantly revised were I still employed by a public university.) The all-purpose profile is typically modified when it's prepared for a volunteer instead of a staff member: the focus then becomes biographical, professional, familial, and community-leadership details; financial assets and internal-giving-history are addressed more generally, more compactly.
The purpose, in the case of research prepared for staff members, is twofold: to provide a base of information that can be another tool for building a mutually satisfying connection with a donor/prospect; and, when that connection has already been advanced significantly, to help determine an appropriate range for the person's potential financial contribution (i.e. to shape "the ask").
Having distantly had some acquaintance with institutional research, I'd tentatively say that advancement and institutional research seem to have the following features:
--advancement: rooted equally in numbers and narratives; always shaped by the strategic aims of forging connections and securing major gifts for the Foundation and the hospital; generally standardized (via a profile-template); most often prepared for an audience of one (a frontline colleague)
--institutional: rooted in numbers and concepts; shaped by the strategic aim of understanding who's admitted, who actually matriculates, and who eventually graduates; formatted to fit the needs of a specific project (e.g. the annual U.S. News survey, or various federal forms); most often prepared for deliberative groups on-campus (key committees)
I'll look forward to reading other responses from the group.
Speaker John responds to Paula:
I'd say that my research is all very "applied." Some of it isn't really research per se, but just compilation of statistics and filling out surveys. But for the non-routine projects (which are frequent), people usually have a very specific question or set of questions in mind, and the research I do is designed to provide descriptive or explanatory/evaluative analysis. The answer they want is usually pretty brief: what is the number; if we changed policy x, what would happen; etc.
The descriptive work in my case usually involves counting things: numbers of full-time and part-time students and faculty; numbers of students graduating with each major, number of students in various racial/ethnic categories, etc. The explanatory/evaluative tasks involve trying to determine why certain phenomena exist and whether they're o.k. Such questions have included things like:
- Who double majors? Why? Should the college encourage or discourage it?
- What do students like and dislike about the college's health center?
- How many of our foreign language majors study abroad?
- If we started our academic day at 9:00 rather than 8:30 would students be more likely to sign up for morning classes? Would more faculty be willing to teach at that time?
- What do our students of color like and dislike about the college?
- Do financial aid recipients perform academically as well as full-pay students?
- Do student athletes study abroad at the same rates as other students?
- What would be the effects of changing our current set of general education requirements?
These are all issues I've worked on over the past two years, and the methods have ranged from focus groups to online surveys to just crunching the numbers from the Registrar's office.
Speaker Jan responds to Paula:
The beautiful thing about freelancing is that I get to decide what project and what client to take on. SO in answer to Paula's question about genres, I can say that I choose to work in mostly qualitative forms � lots of focus groups, interviewing. And some flat out book research. Usually my clients are interested in understanding better the cost/benefit of pursuing a particular market, or they are interested in public opinion, or they are information gathering as part of a preliminary stage of business development. For example, in researching the pyrotechnics industry in Canada, I identified the key sources of information through internet research and started calling around to find out what I could on who was an authority in the area. I interviewed them to find out current opinions, stats, and focus of the industry and their perception of the industries future and their on going challenges. With informational interviews such as these I just summarize their position and let the clients decide their next course of action, since they are the ones who really decide the purpose of the research.
My sense of what I do is this: for many companies I may be the first person they contact to do initial research, but I am by no means the last person. What this means is that I may provide preliminary information which helps them decide what next steps to take. I like this kind of research since it is often more 'big picture' oriented, and I do not have to get too much into the detail of things. This is good, since I am not an expert (or even well informed) about many of the topics I research. And if I get a project that requires greater familiarity, I just subcontract the work to someone more knowledgeable than me.
Hope this answers the question adequately!!!
Thanks.
Speaker Jim responds to Paula:
In some of my other responses I have tried to indicate the diversity within the field of evaluation--perhaps it should be called "fields." Just within my practice, there are often multiple audiences of "stakeholders," i.e., constituencies with a particular interest or stake in the evaluation. The purpose of the research may be to give feedback on how to improve a program, it may simply document what a program has done, it may try to measure some set of accomplishments or "outcomes" against what the program set out to achieve. Reports for each of those purposes are different. Sometimes evaluation research is paid for by a funder--government agency or private foundation; sometimes it is paid for by the organization managing the program. This raises questions of confidentiality and accountability for the evaluator. In addition, if the research is about some population, there are confidentiality and other ethical considerations about what information is disclosed to whom.
If a program funder is also paying for all or some of the evaluation research, the closeness of the working relationship between the funder and the organization managing the program is an important consideration for evaluation design. Some government contracts are let to organizations based solely on contract proposals--there have been cases where, after several years, it was determined that no program had ever been implemented. Evaluation may serve to ensure some kinds of accountability. Or some funders want a final study that says how much impact a certain program had, or whether it produced the kinds of outcomes intended by a particular policy initiative; further funding for the program may hinge on such reports. In other cases, the funder may work in a close collaborative relationship with funded organization.
Different evaluators use terms differently and also conceptualize the field differently; there is no coherent or agreed upon meaning for many common terms such as "outcome," and different evaluators carve up the taxonomy of genres differently.
Question from AH:
I have some questions for everyone about focus group research--I noticed that John, you've mentioned working with focus groups, and Jan, you've commented on interviewing people in the course of your research. Would you describe in a little more detail the process of developing questions for and conducting focus groups? (I imagine this process will differ from project to project; it would be interesting to learn the nuts and bolts of any one project!). With what sort of research have you found focus groups most effective, and when have they been less successful than you might have hoped?
I'm also wondering about what kinds of turf wars you've encountered about how to conduct and use this sort of research. Are there any fairly standard ideas in practice about focus group research? (E.g. ideas applied in consumer research as much as in institutional research.) Are there any major conflicts about this type of research? Could you recommend any books, journals, or websites that provide more information--methodological, theoretical, or even historical--about research via focus groups?
Any comments you might have would be great--I'm aware I'm skating around a bit and asking a lot of broad questions here!
Many thanks again for your insights and suggestions!
Speaker John responds to AH:
There are a lot of books describing focus group methods. As you said, some are pretty explicitly geared towards using focus groups for market research, so those are less useful. I found Richard Krueger's Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (Sage, 1988) to be useful despite its vintage. I'd just go to the bookshelf in the library and flip through a couple to identify the useful ones.
We did eight focus groups last year to try to get richer data on students' attitudes regarding their experience at the college. Unlike graduate school research, this was research-design-by-committee, which was at times frustrating but ultimately yielded a good product. The questions got hammered out in a long series of meetings and were very general and open ended (What were your impressions of the college before you got here? What are your impressions now? What would you change? What do you like most?). Logistically, making all the arrangements for these groups was a TREMENDOUS amount of work, and luckily I didn't have to do much of it--I moderated several of the groups and then analyzed the data. We were trying to get groups of similar sorts of students (domestic African American students; southeast Asian international students, first-year students, etc.) and getting 8-10 students to commit to showing up turned out to be very hard. We bribed them with catered lunch, which helped somewhat. In general, the data we collected *were* very rich, although some moderators captured them in much better than others (we took notes rather than taping the sessions--big mistake).
A major challenge was trying to report to the administration what we'd learned. Focus group data can be very rich and suggestive, but they don't yield generalizable findings because the numbers of respondents are too small. So, we went back and forth about whether to call these "findings" or "themes" and settled on the latter. It kind of took the punch out of the whole report to the administration. Focus groups may be most useful as a way to figure out what questions to ask in subsequent large-scale surveys. You have to be careful not to become seduced by those really insightful, interesting comments made by one or two people, which may not really reflect what anyone else thinks. Some social scientists think focus groups are voodoo and others find them methodologically sound, if done right. I'd say it would perhaps have been best to just do the follow-up surveys and *then* tell the administration what we found (and then we'd look really smart for having asked all the right questions). However, politically speaking, the focus groups had kind of a high profile and had been built up as a great information-gathering initiative, and so the administration naturally wanted to know what we'd found.
On the whole, I'd say we learned a lot of useful, interesting, surprising things, but that we haven't yet been able to convert that into a set of solid findings about students' attitudes in general.
However, a broad assortment of people from across campus was on the committee that designed the questions, so in that way the insights *have* been made known to those who can use them on a daily basis.
Hope this helps.
Speaker Jan responds to AH:
Hmmm ... these are good questions which requires me to consider more deeply my own process around my work!
I do run a lot of focus groups and do a lot of interviewing. The questions are generated by me for the most part - although I have been hired specifically to run the focus groups and collect interview data as part of a team of researchers. I love to meet people and discuss things with them, and have found that most people love to talk about what they do or is of interest to them. I have had many years training in counseling skills, coaching, and facilitation so I just focus on asking open ended, non-judgmental questions. Most of the time, interviews and focus groups are scripted to some extent, and it is my job to get the info while making people feel comfortable, valued and safe to give honest responses. I tape all group and individual interactions and get the tapes transcribed. In developing questions for focus groups or interviews I begin by identifying the information gap I want to fill, and use the client's goals to guide me. In longitudinal studies I take into account previous questions which I may ask again. The more provocative questions are asked towards the end of the interview after I have established rapport. Generally speaking I think that focus groups and individual interviewing works best when trying to identify areas of
expertise, and when trying to uncover info that might not be available in other formats (ie. written up in articles). I use it to help build networks of contacts as well -- I can call someone back and say "hey remember me? I have a quick question about ....".
Interestingly, I have found my greatest challenges around teaching others to run focus groups. The assumption is that doing this work is pretty easy -- get a bunch of people together, ask them the questions you planned on asking, give them a slice of pizza or two, and then code and analyze the data. I have found that running the group requires a well-developed skill set in the area of group dynamics and communications. And this is not usually something that you learn in a book but is rather something that comes through working in the field. I would recommend to anyone wishing to do this kind of research that they take a few group facilitation courses that will alert them to some issues of group dynamics. Knowing when people are triggered, or when they are reacting to group processes - and how to minimize this � is important if you want to get great info quickly, and build a trusting group environment. I am not sure of the American training resources but here in Canada we have a great and affordable certification program in Life Skills training run by the YWCA of Toronto ( www.ywcatoronto.org ).
Thanks.
Question from XY:
Thanks so much for your time this week. This question likely only applies to a couple of you ...
If you're working on a project in which you need to interview x corporate executives, or obtain information from a number of organizations (that will require someone there sit down and talk with you or fill out forms), have you developed any tricks to ensure good participation rates from people whom you contact?
I hope this question is okay for this discussion. As part of my own research job, getting individuals and companies to participate in my research projects can be challenging. I need them to take time from their busy schedules to help me with my work. Some research is of interest to them, in which case a promise to send them final data or a report is enough to obtain participation. However, that doesn't always work or isn't applicable. I'm looking for other angles to try.
Thanks.
FREELANCE vs. ON-STAFF, FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT
Question from Paula:
Even though I am still interested in hearing more responses to my last question, I'd like to start a new thread about freelance research and the differences between doing it freelance and doing it as a full-time employee of some institution.
Jan, would you tell us a little more about your freelance research business and what qualities, habits or desires one might have that would make one well-suited to hang out a shingle and go freelance? How would someone break into the business and get started as a sole practitioner?
Speaker Jan responds to Paula:
I kind of fell into researching. I did not really have an action plan around developing a business. I just needed some extra money fast, and knew that I could find information quickly, write succinctly, and present information without getting caught up in the ramifications of it. So, I quite literally got out the yellow pages and called several businesses that I thought may have resource departments. In most cases the research people within many smaller companies do not have graduate degrees, so having a Masters, and then a Phd was a great asset. I have found that outside of academia, most people don't really care what area your work is in; they see the letters and assume that you must know something! I have never been asked what my PhD is in, or if I have pre-existing knowledge in a particular field.
My sense is, and I am being quite candid here, that most academics feel they must find the place that suits them best, and usually this place is idealized as something that is already fully formed and filled with like-minded people. We are great at working through a pre-existing structure, having been in school for so many years. This may predispose academics to less entrepreneurial ventures. However, I maintain that academics may be very well suited to freelance work--we are great problem-solvers, we are great at collecting information, have excellent and trained memories, are good at organizing ideas and usually data, and are naturally curious and very disciplined. We can write well, communicate effectively, and learn fast! We work to deadline and in isolation well. What seems to be lacking is the vision to do so, or even the knowledge of the many other possibilities that lie beyond academia--in research or otherwise. The business world will pay handsomely for employees who have these skills. And these skills serve well those who wish to move towards a more self-defined existence. The thing about freelance is this: you can do it in your spare time! Move into it slowly, one client at a time, and not have to put all your eggs in the entrepreneurial basket. Certainly multi-streaming income is a great way to ensure that you always have cash flow, and to generate contacts across multiple industries.
As far as getting started? Well, I believe it starts with picking up the phone, or asking friends that are employed in businesses for the name of the contact in their company who might hire a researcher. Then put together a cv focusing on your research experience--even if it is simply working with secondary documents. And of course, the more people you tell bout your interest in researching, the more potential connections you will make.
If I wanted to actually start a business in a full and flat out way, well that is a different story which involves getting a business consultant and developing a business plan and a marketing program. I think it is easier to start with a few small clients first--then go for it if you enjoy the work.
Thanks.
Question from GZ:
I've really enjoyed learning about your different career paths and experiences working outside of academia. I just finished my Ph.D. in September in psychology and social behavior and now I'm trying to find an applied research position. I've applied for about eight jobs but so far I haven't heard anything back (it's been about a month). I haven't been a perfect fit for most of the positions in regards to specific subjects area (e.g., experience with K-12 education) but I possess the qualitative research skills they're looking for. I was wondering if Jim or Janna can talk about their experiences working for nonprofits. Do you work on projects that aren't related to your academic background? How important is it to have previous experience in particular research areas? Also, do you have any advice for someone who is trying to find a research position with nonprofit organizations?
Thank you all so much for participating in this discussion. It's very encouraging and interesting to hear about your experiences working outside of academia.
Speaker Jim responds to GZ:
I suppose a lot has to do with your interests. Most of the medium-sized and smaller research firms I know in the nonprofit world are not very field-specific. That is, they offer broad research skills to organizations offering very different services. For example, recently I have worked with a large foundation that funds only in the field of health, a small non-profit that provides services to the hard of hearing, an advocacy organization that promotes policies to benefit children, and a regional consortium of organizations interested in increasing civic engagement of recent immigrants, and a community foundation. My academic studies provided me with an understanding of research methodologies in the social sciences, but much of what I need for the applied research I conduct I have had to learn through apprenticeship and work experience. Many practitioners enter the field with graduate work, but then learn by working for an established firm. The trick, of course, is finding a firm that does work you like and respect and that at the same time values either the skills you already have or the potential they see.
Many evaluators, particularly in the field of evaluation of educational programs, come from a psychology background. There are a number of firms that specialize in that kind of work. I am not familiar with their hiring requirements--you could look at the web site of the American Evaluation Association, particularly the page on Topical Interest Groups http://www.eval.org/TIGs/tig.html . These are affiliation groups for members of the association, but it gives you some sense of the categories in the field. For each group, there is contact information for some members of the group. Although it is aimed at members, if you see something that interests you, I suggest you send some more specific questions to the contact person.
Speaker Janna responds to GZ:
My outlook was infected with a virus when I opened it this afternoon and, among others, I lost the complete folder with the discussion this week. I spent a few hours this evening trying to retrieve the missing folders, to no avail.
I know there was a message sent late last night about working for nonprofits so I'm going to go ahead and respond to what I remember the question was. I believe the question had to do with whether my background was related to the research I'm doing at my current job. The answer is no--my dissertation was on the trade of television programs in Latin America and the focus of my research right now is women entrepreneurs. My first couple of contract projects after getting the Ph.D.were related to media in Latin America, but my sense has been that, in general, interest in Latin America since 2001 has diminished considerably (and as a result available funding) and I tried to open my options in other areas.
I suppose that that the answer to this question may vary by field, but in general I've had positive experiences when trying to apply my research skills to other areas of inquiry.
I hope this answers the original question. Please let me know if you have additional comments/questions about this.
Question from IO:
I had a question for Janna that is more about working as a researcher in the non-profit setting, rather than about the research itself. I'm hoping this can make it in before the end of the discussion!
I was interested to read about the work that Janna is doing and was wondering how well your contracted work week matches with the time you actually work. My own experience in non-profits has been that official working hours mean little as it's all about sacrificing for the cause. Added to that the sometimes unexpected twists and turns of research, I wonder whether you feel pressure from your organization to put in a lot of extra time and/or are made to feel guilty if you do not. I, too, have a family and would really like to hear about how you manage this issue (if it even is one).
Thanks to all the speakers for an enlightening discussion!
Speaker Janna responds to IO:
Fortunately I'm working in a very flexible setting and this hasn't been an issue for me. Sometimes I'm working on a deadline and have to work more hours than the number of hours agreed upon, but I can count them as a compressed week, or earn comp time and take the time off some other week when we don't have that much work. I can also work some hours from home and that helps a lot during crunch time. I'm very lucky--flexibility works both ways in our organization. They know I'm committed to make all the deadlines we have and they are understanding when I need flexibility as well.
There have been weeks when I felt that I'm doing a 40-hour job in a 28-hour week (pretty stressful weeks!). But overall it seems to even out.
Question from XY:
Having tried unsuccessfully to find freelance research/communications work through cold calling, I'm wondering if you could share with us more information on your approach.
For example, what types of companies did you target (besides the insurance industry)? whom did you speak with (ie what role in the company did they have)? How did you open the conversation? what did you say to keep them on the phone and interested?
Thanks.
Speaker Jan responds to XY:
Hmmm -- Well, I don't think I have any magic formula for getting clients. I have had some success with cold calling and think that this is really a function of timing. There is a whole science to cold calling re: providing services and seeing if there is a fit between service offered and what the client requires (this is called service marketing). I have also been hired by computer companies, research firms, a wide variety of service industries like bars, non-profit foundations and organizations, and law firms and medical communities--most of these contacts came through connections that had some personal element to them--people I met at fundraisers, or at parties etc.--I am a keen networker, and the work that I do is a natural extension of my curiousity and desire to share information with others and gather information from others. I may ask someone their opinion on something in their own industry and then ask if I can use them as a resource person should I require info in that particular area. Many of these people have contacted me down the road--I think of this as long-term marketing since a person may carry around my biz card for a few years before needing to connect with me. I also offer information to people so that if they need a contact in a certain area chances are I might know someone who knows someone--again, this is not something that I would charge for...this is just something that keeps me and my skills in the minds of those who know me. And having access to my extensive network of connections/acquaintances is just a perk for anyone who is in my loop.
I fundamentally believe that the more you give out the more that comes back. And I don't believe that there is a shortage of research that can be done, or a shortage of people willing to pay for it; the trick is being the one that they remember and want to work with!
Not sure if this helps since it is not a formula for success--it is just merely what works for me.
Thanks.
ADVANCEMENT (FUNDRAISING) RESEARCH
Speaker Jeff writes:
This fascinating discussion will no doubt be wrapping up fairly soon, and--before that happens--I wanted to put in another 'plug' (?!) for advancement (fundraising) research. In an earlier WRK4US posting, I had directed readers to the Web version of the Winter 2003 issue of Connections, an advancement researchers' journal. Even just tiptoeing through it--some of which is available for free at http://www.aprahome.org/publications/connections/conn-winter2003.htm will give you a sense of the astonishingly varied backgrounds of the folks currently working in this field.
One of that issue's writers had worked at the JFK Museum, and then for Garrison Keillor; one had been a soap opera actor (no kidding!); another had been a river-rafting instructor; and still another (whose story, alas, might not have ended up in the final print-version) had been, I think, a massage therapist and belly-dancer. The range and complexity of those "how I became an advancement researcher" stories really amazed me when I guest-edited that issue, and I have the same feeling every time I attend the always-in-August international researchers' conference. As is the case with so many work- (and other) roles, that kind of diversity truly enriches and strengthens the field.
I'm belaboring this point because I recall, from both undergraduate and graduate school days, the "Suspicion of Money Matters" often fostered within the academy. Whether from a (probably justified) unease with the spread of the "corporate model," or (perhaps for teaching assistants) out of a psychological "compensation" for basically having no money, I think chasing-the-dollar was typically viewed with disdain. And, when I entered advancement research, the reaction of some friends and family members brought this home all over again.
But, if you've dismissed any consideration of advancement research because you think it would feel like "selling out," please think again. Yes, money is obviously a key part of fundraising. But the primary part--what that money ultimately serves, or is a tool for--is the ongoing attempt to forge durable, satisfying, tangibly productive connections between people, people who share a commitment to a particular socially beneficial cause (e.g. a children's hospital, a university, an art museum, etc.). Bottom line: Don't be 'scared off' by "the money part." The story of this strand of research is far richer--far more textured--than that.
Paula ends the discussion:
This message officially closes the Guest Speaker Discussion on Careers in Professional Research. Many thanks to the five Guest Speakers and all subscribers who posted questions and responses. On behalf of the entire subscribership, I would like to express gratitude to our five speakers, Jim, John, Jeff, Jan and Janna. They shared generously of their time, knowledge and experience, for which we are much in their debt. Thanks as well to those of you who asked questions and kept the discussion going. Way to go, everyone!
The next Guest Speaker Discussion will take place early next year, exact dates TBA. I will announce the topic when it has firmed up. Until then, you are free to use the list in whatever manner you choose as long as it is consistent with the list's purpose: to share information and encouragement regarding nonacademic careers for humanities, education and social science PhDs.
Happy exploring,
Paula Foster Chambers
WRK4US list manager
www.woodrow.org/phd/wrk4us/